todays paper talk

[gpartin]

butt monkey posted:

gpartin posted:
Clubs like Leeds and Hull have proved that you can compete at a top level without over-spending.

You could also say that Catalans and Hull KR have been "competitive" without over-spending. Would you be happy with there league positions?

No, but I didn't mention those clubs. 2nd and 4th in the league is competitive in anyones book, maybe your definition is different?

[butt monkey]

gpartin posted:

butt monkey posted:

gpartin posted:
Clubs like Leeds and Hull have proved that you can compete at a top level without over-spending.

You could also say that Catalans and Hull KR have been "competitive" without over-spending. Would you be happy with there league positions?

No, but I didn't mention those clubs. 2nd and 4th in the league is competitive in anyones book, maybe your definition is different?

Catalans - Challenge Cup Runners up and
Hull KR - winners over the Warriors twice (away), with the side (essentially) that got promoted.

That's about as competitive as Leeds and Hull IMO!!!

[butt monkey]

And how many times have Leeds and Hull beat Wigan in the league this season?????

[lucky 13]

Think DW and MO would like it if we won something while they were still in the drivers seat .
The take over will be announced next month once our involvement with the play offs is over (so not for a few weeks yet :eusa10: ) on the signings these rumers in the paper of who he will not sign are next to comments that he won't talk about Wigan and a takeover so like most things posted on this section probably 95% false so after that statement I've eared that its decision time for Fitzy today he can take a one year deal at Salford or a three year deal with us , the Salford one is worth more to him but its only a year , he would love to play for us and also the 3 years is tempting , board meeting tonight he as to let them know as we will look elsewhere the offer ends today .

[butt monkey]

lucky 13 posted:
Think DW and MO would like it if we won something while they were still in the drivers seat .
The take over will be announced next month once our involvement with the play offs is over (so not for a few weeks yet :eusa10: ) on the signings these rumers in the paper of who he will not sign are next to comments that he won't talk about Wigan and a takeover so like most things posted on this section probably 95% false so after that statement I've eared that its decision time for Fitzy today he can take a one year deal at Salford or a three year deal with us , the Salford one is worth more to him but its only a year , he would love to play for us and also the 3 years is tempting , board meeting tonight he as to let them know as we will look elsewhere the offer ends today .

I read he had already turned Wigan's offer down. Not prepared to earn a "pay as you play" contract at Wigan!, he is getting a full-time contract at Salford - with guaranteed payment.

[gpartin]

butt monkey posted:

gpartin posted:javascript:bbstyle(-1)
[close tags]

butt monkey posted: You could also say that Catalans and Hull KR have been "competitive" without over-spending. Would you be happy with there league positions?

No, but I didn't mention those clubs. 2nd and 4th in the league is competitive in anyones book, maybe your definition is different?

Catalans - Challenge Cup Runners up and
Hull KR - winners over the Warriors twice (away), with the side (essentially) that got promoted.

That's about as competitive as Leeds and Hull IMO!!!

Hull last 4 League positions 3, 5, 2, 4
Leeds last 4 League positions 1, 2, 3, 2

Catalans 12, 10
Rovers 11

Bit different really, and using beating a massively inconsistent Wigan side as an indication of competitiveness is a little strange. Anyway not to worry pointless argument really

[butt monkey]

gpartin posted:

butt monkey posted:

gpartin posted:javascript:bbstyle(-1)
[close tags]
No, but I didn't mention those clubs. 2nd and 4th in the league is competitive in anyones book, maybe your definition is different?

Catalans - Challenge Cup Runners up and
Hull KR - winners over the Warriors twice (away), with the side (essentially) that got promoted.

That's about as competitive as Leeds and Hull IMO!!!

Hull last 4 League positions 3, 5, 2, 4
Leeds last 4 League positions 1, 2, 3, 2

Catalans 12, 10
Rovers 11

Bit different really, and using beating a massively inconsistent Wigan side as an indication of competitiveness is a little strange. Anyway not to worry pointless argument really

Not having "a go" gpartin, but what have previous seasons got to do with a debate over competitiveness for this season? I might as well drag up teams from the 80's

[butt monkey]

gpartin posted:
using beating a massively inconsistent Wigan side as an indication of competitiveness is a little strange.

Surely that is the point! Inconsistency = lack of competitiveness. Are Wigan consistent in their performances?

Name any side where inconsistency is not to fault for poor performances. Damn, you will be telling me all trys are scored from poor defence from some-one next!!!

[gpartin]

butt monkey posted:

gpartin posted:
using beating a massively inconsistent Wigan side as an indication of competitiveness is a little strange.

Surely that is the point! Inconsistency = lack of competitiveness. Are Wigan consistent in their performances?

Name any side where inconsistency is not to fault for poor performances. Damn, you will be telling me all trys are scored from poor defence from some-one next!!!

Deary me all I said was 'Clubs like Leeds and Hull have proved that you can compete at a top level without over-spending', is that wrong? Since Wigan have 'over-spent' they do not fall into that category anyway. The average league positions over the last few years (not the 80's ) have been far better than ours, and demonstrate a certain amount of consistency long term, and I think If you read that sentence again without trying to look for holes in the argument you will see what I am saying.

[butt monkey]

gpartin posted:

butt monkey posted:

gpartin posted:
using beating a massively inconsistent Wigan side as an indication of competitiveness is a little strange.

Surely that is the point! Inconsistency = lack of competitiveness. Are Wigan consistent in their performances?

Name any side where inconsistency is not to fault for poor performances. Damn, you will be telling me all trys are scored from poor defence from some-one next!!!

Deary me all I said was 'Clubs like Leeds and Hull have proved that you can compete at a top level without over-spending', is that wrong? Since Wigan have 'over-spent' they do not fall into that category anyway. The average league positions over the last few years (not the 80's ) have been far better than ours, and demonstrate a certain amount of consistency long term, and I think If you read that sentence again without trying to look for holes in the argument you will see what I am saying.

We could go on.... Like the "Ariston" adverts :doz: